Obviously no Orthodox priest, certainly not the Greek or Russian, in my neck of the woods, got the memo. I'm talking about at least 25 priests.

Whatever!

The Holy Synods of both the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and all Africa

Interesting that you chose not to quote this from the article in your link:

But since up until now we are waiting for the responses of the Holy Synods of some other churches in both families, the restoration of full communion is not yet reached between the two sides of the bi-lateral dialogue. (emphasis mine)

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Interesting that you chose not to quote this from the article in your link:

Much more interesting that you chose to, perhaps you wanted to create the impression that it somehow undermines the rest of the article and the point made.

... which it does. Intercommunion between churches means the whole shebang. The fact that only a single EO jurisdiction out of 16? has signed this agreement and none of the others agree with it, it speaks volumes.

Interesting that you chose not to quote this from the article in your link:

Much more interesting that you chose to, perhaps you wanted to create the impression that it somehow undermines the rest of the article and the point made.

No. I'm creating no impression the text of the article doesn't plainly make. It shows that the two Patriarchates of Alexandria have agreed in principle to restore communion, no doubt, but it equally clearly shows that communion is not fully restored in fact. On the contrary, there is simply an agreement between the two churches to treat the other's lay folk as Orthodox, but there is no concelebration nor restoration of communion between the two Patriarchates. Had we actually ended the schism I'd be overjoyed, but we haven't. The OOs and EOs remain out of communion with one another.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Not if you take the time to peruse the site and all official documents including the Russian Orthodox endorsement.

You're clutching at straws. Such "endorsements" don't matter a hill of beans if none of the clergy act on them. And, in my neck of the woods, none have. Remember that the Russian custom is "no communion without prior confession". This practice alone would easily detect and stop in its tracks anyone who is not EO and of a canonical jurisdiction.

No. I'm creating no impression the text of the article doesn't plainly make.

I'm afraid thats precisely what you are attempting by offering a fallacy of equivocation, no one said the schism is over and it's disengenous to suggest otherwise. You may if you like disagree with the process to full communion embarked on by the Joint Commission but it will reach it's conclusion.

No. I'm creating no impression the text of the article doesn't plainly make.

I'm afraid thats precisely what you are attempting by offering a fallacy of equivocation, no one said the schism is over and it's disengenous to suggest otherwise. You may if you like disagree with the process to full communion embarked on by the Joint Commission but it will reach it's conclusion.

Get on board, or get out of the way!

I admire your optimism. The "agreement" was signed in 1990, and its practical application immediately sank without trace. It's dead. No amount of wishful thinking on your part will bring it back to life.

No. I'm creating no impression the text of the article doesn't plainly make.

I'm afraid thats precisely what you are attempting by offering a fallacy of equivocation, no one said the schism is over and it's disengenous to suggest otherwise. You may if you like disagree with the process to full communion embarked on by the Joint Commission but it will reach it's conclusion.

Get on board, or get out of the way!

You quite clearly claimed that we were in communion with the OOs on the previous page of this thread. What on earth do think that would mean if not that the schism was healed? I don't disagree with attempts to heal the schism at all - quite the contrary - just your misguided and premature claims that we've already completed the process.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

You quite clearly claimed that we were in communion with the OOs on the previous page of this thread.

You are either dileberatly misrepresenting the plain meaning of what I said or you clearly didn't read what I wrote. I strongly suggest you review the thread since my first post Reply #75 Newsflash! The mutual anathemas have been lifted. No communion does not mean full-reconcilliation and healing of the schism until the initiated process comes to fruition, a process both sides are committed to, whether you like it or not.

Let me spell this out then. Just how many jurisdictions do you count against it, none. Which jurisdiction is involved in the dialogue, the one with the direct historical concern, Alexandria. How many jurisdictions have approved and participated in the dialogue; Russian, Greek, Serbian, Romanian. The only people I see against the official process are the 'message (surf) boarders' here and a few rogue sites.

Let me spell this out then. Just how many jurisdictions do you count against it, none. Which jurisdiction is involved in the dialogue, the one with the direct historical concern, Alexandria. How many jurisdictions have approved and participated in the dialogue; Russian, Greek, Serbian, Romanian. The only people I see against the official process are the 'message (surf) boarders' here and a few rogue sites.

Participation in dialogue simple means "we've talked". Nothing more. I'll say it one more time: none of the other EO churches allow communion of OOs in their churches. Period.

OK, can we make a distinction between limited intercommunion and full communion?

No, there has not been an agreement reached on full communion between all EO and OO Churches. Unfortunately, it probably won't happen in the near future either.

However, there have been local, limited intercommunion agreements between some EO and OO churches, spearheaded by the two Antiochian Jurisdictions. So let's not pretend that there is no intercommunion at all, as there clearly is.

OK, can we make a distinction between limited intercommunion and full communion?

No, there has not been an agreement reached on full communion between all EO and OO Churches. Unfortunately, it probably won't happen in the near future either.

However, there have been local, limited intercommunion agreements between some EO and OO churches, spearheaded by the two Antiochian Jurisdictions. So let's not pretend that there is no intercommunion at all, as there clearly is.

But acknowledging that intercommunion is practiced in one jurisdiction is not the same as asserting that the EO and OO are now in communion with each other. Intercommunion is practiced, yes, but we are not in full communion with each other.

OK, can we make a distinction between limited intercommunion and full communion?

No, there has not been an agreement reached on full communion between all EO and OO Churches. Unfortunately, it probably won't happen in the near future either.

However, there have been local, limited intercommunion agreements between some EO and OO churches, spearheaded by the two Antiochian Jurisdictions. So let's not pretend that there is no intercommunion at all, as there clearly is.

But acknowledging that intercommunion is practiced in one jurisdiction is not the same as asserting that the EO and OO are now in communion with each other. Intercommunion is practiced, yes, but we are not in full communion with each other.

OK, can we make a distinction between limited intercommunion and full communion?

No, there has not been an agreement reached on full communion between all EO and OO Churches. Unfortunately, it probably won't happen in the near future either.

However, there have been local, limited intercommunion agreements between some EO and OO churches, spearheaded by the two Antiochian Jurisdictions. So let's not pretend that there is no intercommunion at all, as there clearly is.

But acknowledging that intercommunion is practiced in one jurisdiction is not the same as asserting that the EO and OO are now in communion with each other. Intercommunion is practiced, yes, but we are not in full communion with each other.

Which begs the question... How is one defining communion these days? Is there a real difference between being "full communion" and having intercommunion agreements, other than that some hierarchs aren't explicitly named in the diptychs? Isn't that a bit like having a divorced couple having an understood agreement to get along by in part not acknowledging they're divorced?

But the larger thrust of all of this is true. The majority of the EO have not entered into such agreements. There's no need to pretend that irregularities -- even well intended, and possibly good ones -- are the norm.

Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Which begs the question... How is one defining communion these days? Is there a real difference between being "full communion" and having intercommunion agreements, other than that some hierarchs aren't explicitly named in the diptychs? Isn't that a bit like having a divorced couple having an understood agreement to get along by in part not acknowledging they're divorced?

I would hate to use an example that is explicitly hated by the Lord as he said in Malachi 2:14, 16. Nothing good comes out of divorce, ever.

I would consider "full communion" as two parties in a covenant - like marriage - that enjoy the covenant, while intercommunion agreements is a covenant between two parties who don't fully appreciate the covenant yet - sort of like betrothal.

Quote

But the larger thrust of all of this is true. The majority of the EO have not entered into such agreements. There's no need to pretend that irregularities -- even well intended, and possibly good ones -- are the norm.

But this definition is also inadequate. These irregularities, while not the norm, is a step toward the goal officially agreed upon by the majority of EO and OO in the dialogues. Irregularity is not the same as popularity. What is irregular is not that some churches are having intercommunion agreements which are unpopular. What is irregular is that no one sees it as a step towards the agreed upon goal. What is irregular is trying to find ways to revert back to pre-20th century dialogue divisions by accusing the EO hierarchs of heresy for even considering unity instead of pushing forward toward unity as prescribed in the gospels.